`_____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`CARDIOCOM, LLC
`Petitioner
`v.
`ROBERT BOSCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner
`_____________________
`CASE IPR2013-00468
`Patent No. 7,516,192
`_____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING
`CROSS-EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS DR. ROBERT STONE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s January 28, 2014 Scheduling Order (Paper 23)
`
`authorizing a motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness,
`
`Patent Owner Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. (“Bosch”) provides the
`
`following observations on the July 15-17, 2014 cross-examination of Petitioner
`
`Cardiocom, LLC’s (“Cardiocom”) reply declarant, Dr. Robert Stone:
`
`No Opinion as to Clams 11, 12, 29, and 30
`
`1.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. So you’ve not set forth in your new ’192 reply declaration and [sic,
`any] opinion that Wright renders obvious Claims 6, 7, 11 or 12?
`A. I have nothing here in this report.
`
`Ex. 2069, 1223:7-10.
`
`Q. And you have not responded to Dr. David’s arguments that Claims
`29 and 30 are not obvious in light of Wright?
`A. I have not argued that or responded to that.
`
`Id., 1243:2-5.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Bosch’s expert Dr. David opinions that Wright does
`
`not disclose the additional limitations of claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,516,192 (Ex. 1001, “ the ’192 patent”). Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 142-146. Dr. David also
`
`opines that Wright does not disclose the additional limitations of claims 29 and 30,
`
`which are identical to claims 11 and 12, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 166-69. This
`
`testimony is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that, in response, he does not
`
`-1 -
`
`
`
`provide any opinions that Wright teaches the additional limitations of claims 11,
`
`12, 29, and 30.
`
`Missing Claim Limitations
`
`2.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1184:5-1185:7, Dr. Stone testified that the “input”
`
`Wright refers to is not an “input command” that is executed as part of a “script
`
`program” as required by claims 1 and 20. Ex. 2069, 1184:5-1185:7. This
`
`testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s argument that Wright specifies that its
`
`scripting language must have an input command. Ex. 1022 ¶ 52. This testimony is
`
`relevant because Dr. Stone admits that the purported input command he identifies
`
`does not satisfy the claim limitations.
`
`3.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1225:14-1225:24 (emphasis added), Dr. Stone
`
`testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. So when you say that Wright renders Claim 17 obvious,
`you're relying on the -- it’s because you believe that Wright teaches a
`human user using a computer program to generate a generic script
`program?
`A. Yes.
`Q. Okay. And that both the human user and the computer program are
`part of what is necessary to satisfy the limitations of Claim 17?
`[A.] Yes.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s analysis with respect to claim 17. This
`
`testimony is relevant because Dr. Stone testifies that the claimed “script generator”
`
`-2 -
`
`
`
`can be satisfied by the combination of a human and a computer program. It is only
`
`through this attenuated reading of “script generator” that Dr. Stone argues the
`
`limitation is disclosed in Wright. Ex. 1022 ¶ 113.
`
`4.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1240:25-1241:20, Dr. Stone testifies that the new
`
`field command described in the Wright patent does not meet the limitations of
`
`Claim 19 of the ’192 patent. This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s argument
`
`that, with respect to claim 19, the “New Field” command in Wright discloses the
`
`claimed “insert commands” that must be part of the generic script program. Ex.
`
`1022 ¶ 117. This testimony is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that the “New
`
`Field” command he identifies in fact does not meet the limitations of claim 19.
`
`Dr. Stone’s Incorrect Understanding of Analogous Art
`
`5.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1142:9-24, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. Okay. And you understand that only analogous art can be
`considered as part of an obviousness combination?
`A. No. I don’t understand that.
`Q. Okay. So --
`A. I understand that a reasonably pertinent art can be considered as
`part of an obviousness consideration. That’s my understanding.
`Q. Okay. So in forming your opinions, you had an understanding that
`art that was not necessarily analogous could still be considered as part
`of an obviousness combination?
`[A.] What I stated that I can use a reasonably pertinent reference that
`is not analogous is my understanding.
`
`-3 -
`
`
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s legal analysis of obviousness at ¶ 28 of Ex. 1022, his
`
`reply declaration. This is relevant because Dr. Stone applies a confused and
`
`incorrect legal standard with respect to the requirement that obviousness
`
`combinations must use analogous art. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2011); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`6.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1145:24-1146:5, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. So you’re not -- sitting here today, you’re not saying that
`Wahlquist is, quote/unquote, analogous art?
`[A.] I’m not prepared to give a -- the answer is I’m not saying that
`right now, yes. You’re correct. I am not saying that at the moment.
`
`See also 864:13-20, 866:2-4. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s usage of Wahlquist in
`
`obviousness combinations, on page 58-78 of Ex. 1008, and his incorrect legal
`
`standard set forth in Exhibit 2069 at 1142:9-24. This is relevant because Dr.
`
`Stone’s incorrect standard explains his usage of Wahlquist in prior art
`
`combinations despite his testimony that Wahlquist is not analogous art.
`
`7.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 955:24-956:12, Dr. Stone testified that in
`
`considering the field of endeavor of a patent, he does not limit his analysis to the
`
`claimed invention, and instead considered the entire disclosure of the patent. See
`
`also id. 1140:6-23 (Dr. Stone “applied the same legal principles [] with respect to
`
`the ’192 patent” as for the other patents, including the ’186 patent); 959:25-960:4.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s argument at pages 58-78 of Ex. 1008 that Wahlquist
`
`-4 -
`
`
`
`is a proper reference to use for obviousness. This is relevant because Dr. Stone
`
`failed to limit his analysis to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348
`
`(“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103
`
`only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”).
`
`Improper Claim Construction: “Database”
`
`8.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1129:25-1130:15 and 1113:22-1114:4, Dr. Stone
`
`testified that anything stored on a computer is necessarily stored in a database.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the construction of
`
`“database” at ¶ 100 of Ex. 1022. See also 1116:1-8; 1190:25-1191:10. This is
`
`relevant because Dr. Stone’s new construction of “database” is overbroad, and is
`
`also untimely. In his reply declaration, Dr. Stone provides for the first time an
`
`extremely broad construction of “database” in response to Bosch’s arguments that
`
`the prior art does not disclose storing script programs and responses in a database.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Stone opines in reply that “a database is merely an ‘electronically-
`
`stored collection of data.’” Ex. 1022 ¶ 100 (citations omitted). By withholding the
`
`construction upon which he bases his opinion until his reply declaration, Dr. Stone
`
`has deprived Dr. David and Bosch of a fair opportunity to respond to his new
`
`construction of “database” and to whether the prior art teaches such a “database.”
`
`9.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1191:11-21, Dr. Stone testified:
`
`Q. So when the claims of the ’192 patent refer to one or more
`
`-5 -
`
`
`
`databases accessible by the data merge program for storing the generic
`script program, it’s your opinion that the term “database” is
`superfluous or redundant because anything stored on a computer is
`necessarily stored on a database?
`[A.] I would agree with that statement. Anything stored on a computer
`in a file is in a database -- in a file system in a database.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the construction of
`
`“database” at ¶ 100 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone testifies that,
`
`based on the definition he relied upon to form his opinions, the use of the term
`
`“database” in the claims is “superfluous” and “redundant.” This demonstrates the
`
`impropriety of Dr. Stone’s construction. Nautilus Grp., Inc. v. Icon Health &
`
`Fitness, Inc., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1204 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (“Courts should not
`
`construe a patent claim term such that it renders other terms in the claim mere
`
`surplusage or reads such other terms out of the claim”) (citing Texas Instruments v.
`
`United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
`
`10.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1197:1-11, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that you
`could not have a monitoring system that would meet all the limitations
`of Claim 11 without also meeting the additional limitations of Claim
`12 … [a]pplying your construction of database.
`[A.] In the broadest construction of database, that’s true.
`
`This testimony is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the construction of
`
`“database” at ¶ 100 of Ex. 1022. This is significant because Dr. Stone admits that,
`
`-6 -
`
`
`
`based on his construction of “database,” there is no difference in scope between
`
`claim 11 and claim 12, which depends from claim 11. Dr. Stone’s opinion is
`
`contrary to Federal Circuit law. See, e.g., Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 226
`
`F.3d 1334, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Improper Claim Construction: “Script Program”
`
`11.
`
`In Exhibit 2069, at 1034:10-1035:19, Dr. Stone testifies that he
`
`believes that the Board’s construction of “script program” is overbroad and
`
`different than what he now believes is the proper construction of the term, which
`
`he proposes in a (now-rejected) petition for the related ’469 patent and in two new
`
`petitions for the related ’249 patent. Specifically, Dr. Stone testifies that there are
`
`at least two “relevant distinctions” between the Board’s construction and what he
`
`now believes is the correct construction. Ex. 2069, 1034:10-1035:19; see also
`
`1012:1-4; 1050:12-22; Ex. 2060 ¶¶ 26-29; Ex. 2061 ¶¶ 60-64; Ex. 2062 ¶¶ 39-43.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinion about the term “script program” at ¶ 25 of
`
`Ex. 1008. This is relevant because Dr. Stone has provided no opinions in this
`
`proceeding based upon his newly-proposed construction of “script program.”
`
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`
`12. At Ex. 2069, 784:15-21 and 784:2-9, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. So you made up your mind that the claims of the ’420, ’186 and
`’192 patents were invalid as obvious before you considered any
`evidence of secondary considerations?
`
`-7 -
`
`
`
`[A.] That’s -- that pretty well states the case.
`
`Ex. 2069, 784:15-21; see also id. 783:1-15.
`
`Q. But just so we’re clear, none of the actual exhibits, the documents
`and the videos for the news programs and the exhibits that Dr. David
`cited were confidential or proprietary or secret or marked in some way
`that made you think that would have been impossible for you to have
`found, gotten or considered?
`A. No.
`
`Id., 784:2-9. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of objective indicia of non-
`
`obviousness at ¶¶ 61-90 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits
`
`that he failed to consider any secondary indicia of non-obviousness in forming his
`
`original opinions, despite the fact that the evidence of secondary indicia cited by
`
`Bosch and Dr. David was all public information.
`
`13. At Ex. 2069, 835:23-836:7 and 1302:24-1303:19, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. So among those who were interested in patient care, there
`was a need for remote patient monitoring in general since at least the
`1970s?
`A. I would agree with that.
`Q. And that need continued -- sorry. Well, that need continued from
`at least the 1970s through at least the invention of the ’420, ’186, ’192
`patents?
`A. It continues today.
`
`See also id. 1302:24-1303:19. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of long-
`
`-8 -
`
`
`
`felt need at ¶¶ 79-82 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone agrees that
`
`there was a long-felt need for the claimed inventions of the ’192 patent,
`
`constituting evidence of secondary indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`14. At Ex. 2069, 837:3-20, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. So it’s fair to say, then, that to the best of your knowledge, despite
`the existence of the need for such remote programming devices, no
`one had put all the claim elements together of any of the claims of the
`’420, ’186 or ’192 patents prior to the invention of those patents?
`[A.] I did not find the evidence that was explicit. As I looked carefully
`at some of these references, I believe that there is indication that it is,
`but it’s not explicit.
`[Q.] So sitting here today, you can’t point to a single reference that
`put together all of the elements of any of the claims of the ’186 -- I’m
`sorry. ’186, ’192 or ’420 patents prior to the invention of those
`patents?
`[A.] No.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of long-felt need at ¶¶ 79-82 of Ex. 1022.
`
`This is relevant because, despite a long-felt need, Dr. Stone admits he could find
`
`no single reference or system combining the same elements in the manner set forth
`
`in the ’192 patent prior to the invention of the patent
`
`15. At Ex. 2069, 837:21-838:1 and 804:4-9, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Praised by others is another objective indicia of nonobviousness.
`A. That’s correct.
`
`-9 -
`
`
`
`Q. The Health Buddy product was praised by others?
`A. It was.
`
`Id., 837:21-838:1.
`
`Q. And you’re not saying that the four-button design is the only
`reason for the recognition awards and praise that the Health Buddy
`received?
`[A.] I am not saying that.
`
`Id., 804:4-9. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s discussion of praise by others at ¶¶ 83-
`
`86 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that Bosch’s Health
`
`Buddy product received praise and awards, and that such praise was not simply the
`
`result of a four-button design. This is also evidence of secondary indicia of non-
`
`obviousness of the claimed inventions
`
`16. At Ex. 2069, 828:10-23 and 833:12-17, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. And do you have any evidence that any of the news articles
`set up by Dr. David that were not attributed or indicated, listed as
`authored by Health Hero were, in fact, secretly authored by people at
`Health Hero?
`[A.] I don’t have such evidence.
`[Q.] So you have no evidence that any of the articles that -- identified
`by Dr. David were ghostwritten as you would use that term?
`[A.] I don’t have direct evidence, no.
`
`Ex. 2069, 828:10-23; see also 833:12-17; 830:2-12. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s
`
`speculation at ¶ 71 of Ex. 1022 that Bosch’s evidence of secondary indicia were
`
`-10 -
`
`
`
`“ghostwritten” or paid for by Bosch. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits
`
`that he has absolutely no evidence to support such speculation.
`
`17. At Ex. 2069, 779:5-780:3, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. And you understand that there’s district court litigation between
`Bosch and Cardiocom?
`A. I understand that, yes.
`Q. You understand that Bosch accused Cardiocom of infringing the
`’186, ’420 and ’192 patents?
`A. I understand that, yes.
`Q. Okay. Did you ask anyone at Cardiocom whether they had copied
`the claimed elements out of the ’420, ’186 or ’192 patents?
`A. I don’t recall having any discussions with anyone at Cardiocom, so
`the answer to that would be no. Sorry.
`Q. It’s kind of an important point of information, isn’t it? If
`Cardiocom’s -- if you do ask someone at Cardiocom and they say yes,
`we did copy the claims of the ’186, ’420 or ’192 patent, that would be
`a material fact with respect to your opinion?
`A. It would be. [] But material fact, that’s a legal term, but it would be
`an important piece of information for me to know.
`
`See also id. 845:19-846:2. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions on copying by
`
`others, at ¶¶ 88-90 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits that he
`
`did not consider evidence of Cardiocom’s copying of the claimed inventions of the
`
`’186 patent, despite recognizing the importance of such evidence in analyzing non-
`
`obviousness.
`
`-11 -
`
`
`
`18. At Ex. 2069, 847:4-20, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. Okay. So the V.A. is saying through that RFP that if you want the
`V.A. to purchase your remote patient monitoring device, we the V.A.
`would like to see certain features. This is what we’re evaluating for;
`correct?
`A. That’s not what the V.A. says and that’s not what the proposal
`says. It says that these are desirable but not necessary portions for --
`that should be in the proposal provided back to the V.A.
`Q. What did you understand was meant by desirable?
`A. Would be nice to have.
`Q. Desired by the V.A.?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And the V.A. is the one who’s choosing whether to buy the
`products?
`A. That’s correct.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions about commercial success of Bosch’s
`
`Health Buddy, at ¶¶ 67-69 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone admits
`
`that the features identified in the RFP from the VA (Ex. 2062), some of which
`
`were driven by the claimed inventions of the ’192 patent (Ex. 2007 (David Decl.) ¶
`
`107), are in fact “desirable” and “[d]esired by the V.A.”
`
`19. At Ex. 2069, 851:17-25, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] You do not identify in your declaration any element of any claim
`of the ’420, ’186 or ’192 patent that would not be met by a product
`that implemented what the V.A. identified as desirable features in
`
`-12 -
`
`
`
`their RFP?
`[A.] I think I answered that, but the answer is I do not identify the
`elements of the claim.
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions about commercial success of Bosch’s
`
`Health Buddy product, at ¶¶ 67-69 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone
`
`admits that he did not identify any element of the ’192 patent that would not be
`
`practiced by a product implementing the desirable features in the VA’s RFP.
`
`20. At Ex. 2069, 792:18-793:9, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`Q. You criticize Dr. David for not conducting an element-by-element
`analysis of each of the claims to show there's a correlation with the
`purported invention?
`A. I do.
`Q. And in your -- forming your opinion on whether or not there is
`objective indicia of nonobviousness, you believe it's necessary to
`conduct
`an element-by-element analysis of each of the claims to show that
`there is a correlation with the purported invention?
`A. I do believe that’s true.
`Q. So it's your opinion that there is no secondary indicia of
`nonobviousness because Bosch did not provide such an element-by-
`element analysis?
`[A.] I believe that’s true.
`
`See also Ex. 1022 ¶ 63. This is relevant to the legal standard Dr. Stone applied to
`
`the nexus requirement for secondary considerations of non-obviousness, at ¶ 63 of
`
`-13 -
`
`
`
`Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone argues that Bosch was required to
`
`conduct an “element-by-element analysis” of the claims to establish a nexus
`
`between the secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the ’186 patent. Dr.
`
`Stone’s position is contrary to Federal Circuit law. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573,
`
`1580 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
`
`21. At Ex. 2069, 797:10-798:7, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] You have not set forth in your new declarations any identification
`of elements of claim -- sorry. You have not set forth in any of your
`new declarations an identification of any element of any claim of the
`’420, ’186 or ’192 patent that you believe is not practiced by the
`Bosch products?
`[A.] What I have set forth is that Bosch has not provided evidence that
`they actually practiced the elements of the claims.
`Q. I understand that. But you have not -- you have not identified any
`element you say is not --
`A. That is correct.
`Q. And you have not identified any element that -- of any claim of the
`’420, ’186 or ’192 patent that you believe the Cardiocom products
`don’t practice?
`[A.] I have not analyzed the Cardiocom products for whether or not
`they practice the elements of the claim.
`
`This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions on ¶¶ 62-64 of Ex. 1022 regarding the
`
`nexus requirement. This is relevant because, even in applying his improper legal
`
`standard, Dr. Stone admits that he has not identified any element of any claim of
`
`-14 -
`
`
`
`the ’192 patent that is not practiced by the Bosch products.
`
`22. At Ex. 2069, 813:12-20, Dr. Stone testifies:
`
`[Q.] So with that understanding of the term, do you have any opinion
`on whether or not the Health Buddy was a commercially successful
`product?
`[A.] I understand your question. I will repeat, for me commercially
`successful means that you’re able to make money; that is, that
`ultimately it ends up being a profitable product or leads to a profitable
`business.
`
`See also id. 814:18-815:1. This is relevant to Dr. Stone’s opinions on commercial
`
`success, at ¶¶ 67-78 of Ex. 1022. This is relevant because Dr. Stone incorrectly
`
`opines that commercial success requires a product to be profitable. “[S]ignificant
`
`sales in a relevant market” alone—with no mention of overall profitability—can
`
`demonstrate commercial success. See, e.g., J.T. Eaton & Co., Inc. v. Atl. Paste &
`
`Glue Co., 106 F.3d 1563, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Dated: July 31, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/Don Daybell/
`Don Daybell, Reg. No. 50,877
`Attorney for Patent Owner Robert Bosch
`Healthcare Systems, Inc.
`
`-15 -
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2001
`
`Affidavit of Bas De Blank
`
`BOSCH 2002
`
`Affidavit of Lillian Mao
`
`BOSCH 2003
`
`Microsoft, “Computer Dictionary,”
`Third Edition, 1997, p. 296
`
`BOSCH 2004
`
`Affidavit of Bas De Blank
`
`BOSCH 2005
`
`Affidavit of Lillian Mao
`
`BOSCH 2006
`
`Affidavit of Siddhartha Venkatesan
`
`BOSCH 2007
`
`Dr. David’s Declaration
`
`BOSCH 2008
`
`Yadin B. David CV
`
`BOSCH 2009
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Stone Taken
`on March , 7, 12 & 13, 2014
`
`BOSCH 2010
`
`BOSCH 2011
`
`Bosch Healthcare’s Health Buddy System
`Contract Awarded by Department of
`Veterans Affairs, April 2011
`
`Six Healthcare Organizations Select
`Health Hero Network, Inc., for Disease
`Management Programs, Aug. 23, 1999
`
`-16 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2012
`
`Health Hero Taps Blue Cross as
`Customer
`
`BOSCH 2013
`
`HHN: Web Helps Nurses Manage
`Patients
`
`BOSCH 2014
`
`BOSCH 2015
`
`Fujisawa to Fund Medicine Shoppe
`Transplant Management Program, Nov.
`15, 1999
`
`Eckerd Teams Up with Health Hero to
`Offer Internet-based Patient Care
`Program for Home User, Feb. 7, 2000
`
`BOSCH 2016
`
`Internet Health-Care Companies Target
`Seniors, Newborns, Nov. 9, 1998
`
`BOSCH 2017
`
`Blue Dun Eastside Location Works Well;
`Species Act Hurts
`
`BOSCH 2018
`
`Frost and Sullivan Recognizes Bosch
`Healthcare’s Contribution Towards
`Remote Patient Monitoring, Dec. 23,
`2011
`
`BOSCH 2019
`
`Alaska: Ground Zero for Telehealth
`Innovation and Deployment, Oct. 2011
`
`BOSCH 2020
`
`Health Hero Improves Patient Care with
`Direct Provider Link, June 1999
`
`-17 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2021
`
`Hight-Tech Alternatives Help Providers
`Manage Chronically Ill Seniors, Oct.
`1999
`
`BOSCH 2022
`
`Who’s Your “Health Buddy”?, Feb. 14,
`2000
`
`BOSCH 2023
`
`Buddy Questions, Watches
`
`BOSCH 2024
`
`EDS and Health Hero Network Offer
`Internet Approach to Supporting Patients
`at Home, May 17, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2025
`
`IT Helps Manage Patients with Chronic
`Illness, Dec. 1999
`
`BOSCH 2026
`
`BOSCH 2027
`
`Mercy Health Center’s Telemedicine
`Congestive Heart Failure Disease
`Management Program Shows Significant
`Savings with Health Bud and Health Hero
`iCare Desktop
`
`MDS Pharma Services Demonstrates
`Effectiveness of Health Buddy as a
`Resource-Saving Alternative to Manual
`Patient Diaries
`
`BOSCH 2028
`
`Peter Jennings News Segment, Cutting
`Edge, Feb. 26, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2029
`
`ABC 2 Your Health News Segment,
`Health Buddy – MedStar Visiting Nurse
`
`-18 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`Association
`
`BOSCH 2030
`
`Your Personal Health Buddy, Feb. 26,
`1999
`
`BOSCH 2031
`
`Old Age in the Technology Age, Aug. 8,
`2005
`
`BOSCH 2032
`
`MD Computing, Visual Integration, A
`New Technology for the Talking
`Physician, March/April 2000
`
`BOSCH 2033
`
`The Buddy System, July 15, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2034
`
`Diabetics Get Wired, Jan., 2000
`
`BOSCH 2035
`
`Health Hero Comes to the Rescue via
`FDA First
`
`BOSCH 2036
`
`Designed to Age Well, May 30, 1999
`
`BOSCH 2037
`
`ITAA Information Technology
`Association of America Member Award
`
`BOSCH 2038
`
`e-Health Moving Beyond the Hype
`Award
`
`BOSCH 2039
`
`Mosby’s M CMC XI Award
`
`BOSCH 2040
`
`HBS Health Industry Alumni Association
`eHealth Retreat and Award of Merit, New
`
`-19 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`Media Invision Multimedia Awards
`
`BOSCH 2041
`
`Medical Design Excellence Awards
`
`BOSCH 2042
`
`Frost & Sullivan Award for Product
`Innovation Excellence
`
`BOSCH 2043
`
`DMAA Recognizing Excellence Award
`
`BOSCH 2044
`
`Telehealth Award for Advancing
`Excellence in the Telehealth Industry
`
`BOSCH 2045
`
`Business Week the Best Products of 2000
`Award
`
`BOSCH 2046
`
`The National Managed Health Care
`Congress Award
`
`BOSCH 2047
`
`Frost & Sullivan Awards Health Buddy
`System Developer for Product Innovation,
`Nov. 30, 2004
`
`BOSCH 2048
`
`Health Buddy Patient Testimonials
`
`BOSCH 2049
`
`Riverbend Community Mental Health,
`Inch. video
`
`BOSCH 2050
`
`Mercy Health Center’s Telemedicine
`Diabetes Disease Management Program
`Shows Significant Savings with Health
`Budd and Heath Hero iCare Desktop
`
`-20 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`BOSCH 2051
`
`Case Study. PacifiCare CHF Program –
`“Taking Charge of Your Heart Health”
`Shows Significant Utilization Reduction
`and Costs Savings Using Health Hero
`Platform
`
`Filed
`
`X
`
`BOSCH 2052
`
`Integrated Telehealth and Care
`Management Program for Medicare
`Beneficiaries with Chronic Disease
`Linked to Savings
`
`BOSCH 2053
`
`Challenge of CHF Management: A
`Culmination of Precursors, Oct. 1999
`
`BOSCH 2054
`
`Case Study. Opening a Window of
`Opportunity Through Technology and
`Coordination: A Multisite Case Study,
`Nov. 3, 2003
`
`BOSCH 2055
`
`Easing the Elderly Online in Search of
`Health Information
`
`BOSCH 2056
`
`VA National Acquisition and Logistic
`Center Form
`
`BOSCH 2057
`
`BOSCH 2058
`
`Bosch Healthcare Receives Market
`Strategy Leadership Award from Frost &
`Sullivan, Sept. 24, 2009
`
`Defendant’s Preliminary Claim
`Constructions and Disclosure of Extrinsic
`Evidence Pursuant to Local Patent Rule
`
`-21 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2059
`
`BOSCH 2060
`
`BOSCH 2061
`
`BOSCH 2062
`
`4-2 Served on March 14, 2014
`
`Declaration by Matthew Might, PH.D
`Regarding Claim Constructions of
`Asserted Patents, filed on March 14, 2014
`
`Declaration by Robert T. Stone, PH.D
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 (a), dated
`February 13, 2014
`
`Declaration by Robert T. Stone, PH.D
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63 (a), dated April
`9, 2014
`
`Declaration of Robert T. Stone, Ph.D in
`Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,870,249,
`dated April 24, 2014
`
`BOSCH 2063
`
`Deposition Errata Sheets of Dr. Stone
`
`BOSCH 2064
`
`Supplemental Declaration Responding to
`Patent Owner Contentions By Robert T.
`Stone, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent No.
`7,516,192 Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a)
`
`BOSCH 2065
`
`Medtronic’s Petition for Inter Partes
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, filed
`on April 10, 2014
`
`-22 -
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Filed
`
`BOSCH 2066
`
`BOSCH 2067
`
`Medtronic’s Petition for Inter Partes
`Review Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.100, filed
`on April 25, 2014
`
`Declaration by Robert T. Stone, Ph.D
`Regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,921,186
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(a), dated July
`11, 2013
`
`BOSCH 2068
`
`Signature Pages to Dr. David’s
`Depositions
`
`BOSCH 2069
`
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Stone Taken
`on July 15, 16 & 17, 2014
`
`BOSCH 2070
`
`BOSCH 2071
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`Submitted by Cardiocom, LLC With
`Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469,
`filed July 9, 2014
`
`Patent Owner’s Objections to Evidence
`Submitted by Cardiocom, LLC With
`Respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,587,469,
`filed June 17, 2014
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`-23 -
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned PATENT
`
`OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION REGARDING CROSS-
`
`EXAMINATION OF REPLY WITNESS DR. ROBERT STONE and Exhibits
`
`2058-2067 and 2069-2071 were served in its entirety on July 31, 2014, upon the
`
`following parties via electronic mail:
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Daniel W. McDonald
`Andrew J. Lagatta
`Merchant & Gould
`80 South 8th St., Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`CardiocomIPR@merchantgould.com
`
`By:
`
`/Karen Johnson/
`Karen Johnson
`
`-24 -
`
`